A Coleytown, Inc./Turman-Foster Production, filmed on locations in Louisiana and California. Released through Warner Bros: July 1975. U.K. release: September 1975. Sydney opening at the Ascot. 108 minutes.
SYNOPSIS: This sequel to "Harper" (1966) is set in New Orleans. This time, private detective Lew Archer (re-named Harper for the movies) answers the urgent call of a former romantic involvement (Joanne Woodward), who claims she is being blackmailed. Soon Newman-Harper is up against a bevy of unsavory characters. — L.J.Q.
NOTES: MacDonald's first Lew Archer novel "The Moving Target" (1949) was filmed in 1966. This sequel was adapted from the second Archer novel, but any plans Hollywood may have made for big-screening the rest of MacDonald's work was shelved when this movie failed to click with either critics or public. Nonetheless, the film was actually nominated for an Edgar by the Mystery Writers of America, losing out in the voting to "Three Days of the Condor" (also co-scripted by Lorenzo Semple, Jr).
COMMENT: How did the wide-wide anamorphic screen fare in the mid- 1970s? Not too well, if this film is any indication. Director Stuart Rosenberg fails to utilize Scope at all in the dialogue scenes, relying instead on lots of clumsy, TV-style close-ups. He doesn't make much use of the movie's real locations either. The result is simply that "The Drowning Pool" almost completely misses the ambiance and atmosphere of a Ross MacDonald novel.
Admittedly, Rosenberg is not alone in his failure. The photographer, the composer, even the production designer offer little help. Fortunately the action spots are powerfully handled. Also on the credit side, are some compelling performances. True, Franciosa is unconvincing, but the rest of the support cast plays far more credibly. In fact, mark down especially forceful delineations from Richard Jaeckel and the three girls in the plot: Linda Haynes, Melanie Griffith and Gail Strickland. Alas, Murray Hamilton exaggerates the villainy, whilst Joanne Woodward is a little too mysteriously bland.
However, here's Paul Newman playing Paul Newman again (or at least the smart talking "Cool Hand Luke" Paul Newman), and doing same with charm and effectiveness.
OTHER VIEWS: The script meanders from one crisis to another. The direction is equally perfunctory, and the stars generate few sparks. The aura is that of a long, routine TV mystery melodrama... The film is mostly a tepid collection of clichés. — William Wolf in "Cue".
SYNOPSIS: This sequel to "Harper" (1966) is set in New Orleans. This time, private detective Lew Archer (re-named Harper for the movies) answers the urgent call of a former romantic involvement (Joanne Woodward), who claims she is being blackmailed. Soon Newman-Harper is up against a bevy of unsavory characters. — L.J.Q.
NOTES: MacDonald's first Lew Archer novel "The Moving Target" (1949) was filmed in 1966. This sequel was adapted from the second Archer novel, but any plans Hollywood may have made for big-screening the rest of MacDonald's work was shelved when this movie failed to click with either critics or public. Nonetheless, the film was actually nominated for an Edgar by the Mystery Writers of America, losing out in the voting to "Three Days of the Condor" (also co-scripted by Lorenzo Semple, Jr).
COMMENT: How did the wide-wide anamorphic screen fare in the mid- 1970s? Not too well, if this film is any indication. Director Stuart Rosenberg fails to utilize Scope at all in the dialogue scenes, relying instead on lots of clumsy, TV-style close-ups. He doesn't make much use of the movie's real locations either. The result is simply that "The Drowning Pool" almost completely misses the ambiance and atmosphere of a Ross MacDonald novel.
Admittedly, Rosenberg is not alone in his failure. The photographer, the composer, even the production designer offer little help. Fortunately the action spots are powerfully handled. Also on the credit side, are some compelling performances. True, Franciosa is unconvincing, but the rest of the support cast plays far more credibly. In fact, mark down especially forceful delineations from Richard Jaeckel and the three girls in the plot: Linda Haynes, Melanie Griffith and Gail Strickland. Alas, Murray Hamilton exaggerates the villainy, whilst Joanne Woodward is a little too mysteriously bland.
However, here's Paul Newman playing Paul Newman again (or at least the smart talking "Cool Hand Luke" Paul Newman), and doing same with charm and effectiveness.
OTHER VIEWS: The script meanders from one crisis to another. The direction is equally perfunctory, and the stars generate few sparks. The aura is that of a long, routine TV mystery melodrama... The film is mostly a tepid collection of clichés. — William Wolf in "Cue".